(UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential.

UBT is not merely paradoxical, but "meta-paradoxical" by definition. What does this mean? Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernability and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox".

Although UBT bears a disquieting resemblance to paradox, far better UBT than logic itself. If there were no medium in which logic could be negated - if there were no UBT - then logic would itself be indistinguishable from paradox, and in that case it and our world would fall apart.

As far as concerns 0 being a defined quantity, of course it's defined...in the syntax of arithmetic. Without an underlying conceptual syntax, it would be undefined...and the absence of syntax is what UBT is all about.

Note: our reality is not equivalent to the extrapolated level of reality ascribed to UBT.

More word-game mumbo-jumbo that also equates to a contradiction: something-nothing..

...and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential.

Now that there's less salad on the plate, we find that there is also an anthropomorphic quality that's ascribed to this "nothingness," on top of this nothingness being a contradiction.

UBT is not merely paradoxical, but "meta-paradoxical" by definition.

There's still a black olive on the plate that seems to be pitted-unpitted; nonetheless, prefixing "meta" to paradoxical doesn't make the paradox go away.

What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing! It's a string of words that, for the most part, follow correct syntax but equate to a semantic.

Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernability and utility.

A perfect example of "saying the everything, but telling nothing."

But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox).

Now the word-games are just plain masturbatory! The utility of logic is in its ability to echo reality; whereas the paradox lacks usefulness precisely because it lacks expression in reality.

This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity.

That's so yin-yangy of you, but no. Logic exists in support of reality while paradox is not present in reality.

But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox".

Are you trying for a mental-masturbatory record? More word-games that equates to nothing. Reality is the lack of all paradox; they are mutually exclusive.

The truth comes out: it is indeed a paradox. Far better logic than UBT because logic is not paradoxical.

If there were no medium in which logic could be negated - if there were no UBT - then logic would itself be indistinguishable from paradox, and in that case it and our world would fall apart.

ROFL! There IS a medium where logic can be negated, it's called logic! What do you think you've been doing through most of this post? Regardless, negating reason is absurd and the realm of fantasy.

As far as concerns 0 being a defined quantity, of course it's defined...in the syntax of arithmetic.

Yes, in mathematics as well as in physics or reality; however, zero is a VALUE of SOMETHING in particular and not some all-negating-paradoxical-nothingness that you are pushing here.

Without an underlying conceptual syntax, it would be undefined...and the absence of syntax is what UBT is all about.

No, the absence of reason is what UBT is all about. What you are pushing here is PRECISELY the absence of syntax: zero in and of itself is a meaningless value without a reference to a unit or thing which is zero in value; it's syntax.

Note: our reality is not equivalent to the extrapolated level of reality ascribed to UBT.

This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity.

That's so yin-yangy of you, but no. Logic exists in support of reality while paradox is not present in reality.

Because it is negated by logic, which is the point.

But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox".

Are you trying for a mental-masturbatory record? More word-games that equates to nothing. Reality is the lack of all paradox; they are mutually exclusive.

I think it's clear what's going on here: lacking the abstract thinking skills necessary to understand the concept of nothingness, mr.concrete-bound Tboone tries to imagine what nothingness looks like. Then, after failing at his ridiculous attempt, decides to run around like baboon spewing contradictory nonsense, always to return to the safe assumption that nothingness is beyond his comprehension.

This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity.

That's so yin-yangy of you, but no. Logic exists in support of reality while paradox is not present in reality.

Because it is negated by logic, which is the point.

No, it's negated by reality.

But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium, and it is why the CTMU refers to reality as a "self-resolving paradox".

Are you trying for a mental-masturbatory record? More word-games that equates to nothing. Reality is the lack of all paradox; they are mutually exclusive.

In as much as I try to imagine what a square-circle looks like, which is not much at all actually...

Then, after failing at his ridiculous attempt, decides to run around like baboon spewing contradictory nonsense, always to return to the safe assumption that nothingness is beyond his comprehension.

Ah you've found yet another property of nothingness: comprehensible. So far, that which is NOT suppose to have properties seems to have more than most things! You keep tangling yourself in the web of incoherence: the more you fight it, the more tangled you'll get! The best way out? Let go of the incoherence and then you can begin to build castles on the ground instead of in the air!

By the law of middle exclusion, the word "nothingness" is either defined or not defined. If it is not defined, then it is meaningless even in linguistic terms and no meaningful statements can be made in regard to it. On the other hand, if the word "nothingness" is defined, then we have two options: either it is defined as something with definition, or its defined as something without definition (undefined). Obviously nothingness cannot be defined as having definition, since things with definition have structure and thereby exist. Ergo, nothingness is undefined. Q.E.D.

By the law of middle exclusion, the word "nothingness" is either defined or not defined.

OK: defined or undefined; we'll call this Option A.

If it is not defined, then it is meaningless even in linguistic terms and no meaningful statements can be made in regard to it.

Yep, you got it! It's meaningless and indifferent from all other meaningless things like contradictions, etc. Congrats! You have been coherent for several sentences and have presented us with Option A.

On the other hand, if the word "nothingness" is defined, then we have two options: either it is defined as something with definition...

As opposed to what, something defined without a definition? Do you even read what you write? This is Option B...

...or its defined as something without definition (undefined).

Error! Illogical! Illogical! You were doing so well but you had to go and contradict yourself yet again: an undefined-defined. There was never any need for an Option C; you are only repeating Option A.

Obviously nothingness cannot be defined as having definition...

Obviously because it is Option A which is undefined...

...since things with definition have structure and thereby exist. Ergo, nothingness is undefined.

And thus does not exist. With the exception of your silly Option C, you've done rather well this time around.

So now you should be able to see that the CTMU is based on something that does not exist which bears an uncanny resemblance to fantasy. Now you can add the "Q.E.D."

Claiming that the word "undefined" is not defined is subject to the same rules. If the word "undefined" contradicts with the word "nothingness", then nothingness has enough definition to be contradicted. I guess this is what happens when logic and common sense go bye-bye.

Error! Illogical! Illogical! You were doing so well but you had to go and contradict yourself yet again: an undefined-defined. There was never any need for an Option C; you are only repeating Option A.

Actually, I'm not. In the first dichotomy, I'm making the distinction between words and scribbles. In the second, between the word undefined and everything that corresponds to something that exists.

At 4/21/2014 5:26:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Claiming that the word "undefined" is not defined is subject to the same rules.

The problem is when you equivocate between undefined and defined. We understand that when something is undefined it has no definition; the problem arises when YOU equivocate and claim that "not having a definition" IS a definition.

If the word "undefined" contradicts with the word "nothingness", then nothingness has enough definition to be contradicted.

That statement is not coherent; ie, it makes no sense. Stop playing word-games and state things clearly and concisely.

I guess this is what happens when logic and common sense go bye-bye.

Yes. This is what you've been attempting to do time and again: make logic and common sense go bye-bye.

If "nothingness" is not a coherent concept, then why would I accept a concept that "makes logic and common sense go bye-bye?" I wouldn't. But let's say that you are presenting this concept of "nothingness" as an Axiom: OK, I am willing to bite BUT you need to present a convincing argument as to why I should accept it and you have not. All you do is to use more and more contradictory statements, present no convincing evidence, and dogmatically repeat things. And so anyone in their right mind would reject this.

...or its defined as something without definition (undefined).

Error! Illogical! Illogical! You were doing so well but you had to go and contradict yourself yet again: an undefined-defined. There was never any need for an Option C; you are only repeating Option A.

Actually, I'm not.Actually, you are: and if it's not in the first dichotomy that's a false distinction, then it's in the second.

In the first dichotomy, I'm making the distinction between words and scribbles.

So it's a silly argument we can dismiss.

In the second, between the word undefined and everything that corresponds to something that exists.

Don't know what your point is here; nonetheless, it's clear that nothingness is not a possibility. QED

At 4/21/2014 3:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:I think it's clear what's going on here: lacking the abstract thinking skills necessary to understand the concept of nothingness, mr.concrete-bound Tboone tries to imagine what nothingness looks like. Then, after failing at his ridiculous attempt, decides to run around like baboon spewing contradictory nonsense, always to return to the safe assumption that nothingness is beyond his comprehension.

It may be that you need to put your concepts into language easy-to-grasp. In fact, writing like yours put me off philosophy. What eventually attracted me was riddles, popular presentations of paradoxes and problems like Zeno's, and quotes from philosophers I found inspirational. I thibk everyone has the ability to get what you are saying you just have to work at making it easy enough for them, I believe that's what Socrates did.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

At 4/21/2014 3:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:I think it's clear what's going on here: lacking the abstract thinking skills necessary to understand the concept of nothingness, mr.concrete-bound Tboone tries to imagine what nothingness looks like. Then, after failing at his ridiculous attempt, decides to run around like baboon spewing contradictory nonsense, always to return to the safe assumption that nothingness is beyond his comprehension.

It may be that you need to put your concepts into language easy-to-grasp. In fact, writing like yours put me off philosophy. What eventually attracted me was riddles, popular presentations of paradoxes and problems like Zeno's, and quotes from philosophers I found inspirational. I thibk everyone has the ability to get what you are saying you just have to work at making it easy enough for them, I believe that's what Socrates did.

Communication is a two-way street. Before assuming that these concepts were not clearly explained, perhaps you should reexamine the effort you've put in to understand them. I'd be amazed if it was more than 5 minutes. If superficial, easy-to-understand-without-effort philosophy is all one cares about, then CTMU isn't for them.

At 4/21/2014 3:48:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:I think it's clear what's going on here: lacking the abstract thinking skills necessary to understand the concept of nothingness, mr.concrete-bound Tboone tries to imagine what nothingness looks like. Then, after failing at his ridiculous attempt, decides to run around like baboon spewing contradictory nonsense, always to return to the safe assumption that nothingness is beyond his comprehension.

It may be that you need to put your concepts into language easy-to-grasp. In fact, writing like yours put me off philosophy. What eventually attracted me was riddles, popular presentations of paradoxes and problems like Zeno's, and quotes from philosophers I found inspirational. I thibk everyone has the ability to get what you are saying you just have to work at making it easy enough for them, I believe that's what Socrates did.

But that's just it, he's using semantics and word play to mask the fact that he hasn't a leg to stand on.